What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413470 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5413470?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain- e…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain- r…: $4,868.29 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413470?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413470 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5413470?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain- e…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain- r…: $4,868.29 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413470?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413470 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413470 — net $5,996.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain- retaining wall	$4,868.29	failure to maintain- retaining wall
Compensation: failure to maintain- eaves and spouting	$100.00	failure to maintain- eaves and spouting
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,996.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,996.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413470 — net $5,996.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain- retaining wall	$4,868.29	failure to maintain- retaining wall
Compensation: failure to maintain- eaves and spouting	$100.00	failure to maintain- eaves and spouting
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,996.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,996.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenants] $5,996.29 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 April 2026.
[Names suppressed] appeared for the landlord.
Both tenants attended the hearing and self-represented.
The tenancy commenced on 17 November 2023 and ended on 23 November 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation, damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
At the beginning of the tenancy some repair and maintenance issues arose that led to a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience to the tenants. The landlord agreed to a reduction of rent to $500.00 per week, from $895.00 per week, while these repairs took place from November 2023 to the end of February 2024.
The tenants first raised the issue of a rent rebate for repair and maintenance issues, that arose between May 2024 and April 2025, when the landlord extended the fixed term tenancy from November 2024 and notified the tenants the rent was to increase to $920.00 per week, an increase of $25.00 per week.
When the tenants raised concerns about having their rent increased, at a time they were experiencing further loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience, the landlord offered not to enforce the new rent rate until all the repair and maintenance work had been completed. The rent remained at $895.00 per week for the remainder of the tenancy.
The tenants sought a further rent reduction in September 2025, after experiencing ongoing issues with the landlord’s building contractors taking longer than anticipated to complete the work, being unreliable as to dates and times they were going to be at the premise to undertake work and failing to clean up the yard, driveway and pathway areas in a timely manner after the retaining wall remediation.
The property manager discussed the tenants rent rebate request with the owners and the owner was of the opinion the rent rebate of $25.00 per week was adequate compensation for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants from 30 May 2024 to 23 November 2025. No further compensation was offered.
The parties tried unsuccessfully to settle matters at mediation and have turned to the Tribunal to make orders on the issue of compensation/general damages.
The tenants agree the landlord has not intentionally breached their landlord obligations but consider the landlord has not adequately compensated them for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they have suffered. Further, they say it is this ongoing loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience that led them to end their tenancy. The landlord says it was not aware the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered was so significant that the tenants would feel they had no other option but to move out after the work was completed and that the tenants never informed it of any loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standard and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching this s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Retaining wall
There was a severe weather event on 30 May 2024 that resulted in bricks out of a retaining wall on the west side of the property falling on to the pathway to the backyard, storage shed and washing line.
The tenants informed the landlord by text of this issue on 31 May 2024, and sent a photograph of the bricks that had fallen out of the retaining wall onto the pathway and grass area. There was no damage to the washing line.
The tenants claim they lost full access to that side of the property as the debris from the wall, and subsequent remediation works, blocked safe access to the storage shed and washing line as well as to an entrance to the premise, which was used by one of the tenant’s partners to go to the gym in the early hours of the morning, so as not to disturb the dog and household.
The landlord says the owner made an insurance claim on 31 May 2024, that was not accepted until 14 October 2024. It confirmed that no work was done to move the fallen bricks before the remedial work commenced as the landlord was advised by the insurer to leave it due to it being a complex issue to assess and resolve. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord claims: a. The delay in completing the remediation of the retaining wall (July 2025) was not due to factors inside the owner or property manager(s) control, but were due to: i. The time it took to get the insurance claim accepted; ii. The time it took to obtain resource consent; and iii. Personal issues the building contractor experienced, after being paid for the job; b. The tenants did not initially raise any concerns about the time it was taking to complete the remediation work, until September 2025, when the building contractor had failed to communicate clearly times and dates he would be on site to undertake the work. Additionally, he failed to clean up the dirt and debris in a timely manner after the remediation of the wall was completed; and c. The tenants could access the washing line by using the sliding doors from the lounge or dining room to the backyard but chose to have a dog fence in that area that blocked access. The tenants confirmed they used waratahs to install a fixed fence to keep the dog in the yard at the beginning of the tenancy and but for the retaining wall issue, this was not a problem. The fence did mean that after the retaining wall issue, they could not get access to the back yard that way unless they jumped the fence; d. The washing line was usable (not broken) and used, until it was removed as part of the remediation works around 15 May 2025. The landlord provided routine property inspection photographs that prove the line was being used by the tenants. The tenants produced photographs that shows the line was not there on 15 May 2025 and say they used it occasionally to dry things in the summer months until it was removed and that they had to traverse the rubble to do so at a risk to their safety; and e. The tenants did not raise any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience until they had given notice ending the tenancy and the landlord cannot address what it not brought to its attention.
The tenants say they communicated their distress and inconvenience to the owners when they visited in August 2024, so the owner was aware and that the owner told the insurer about this impact on the tenants when he was on the phone to it during a site visit in August 2024. The property manager says they knew nothing about this, and that the owner had informed them that he considered the abatement of the 2024 rent increase was recognition of any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience suffered by the tenants.
The tenants stated that the damage and contamination of the back lawn was significant and caused them ongoing stress and inconvenience well after the retaining wall work was completed, by around 20 July 2025 until 23 November 2025 (18 weeks).
The tenants confirmed that during an earlier clean-up, the builders had dumped a large amount of mud and rock onto the back lawn, which they assured the tenants they would flatten and restore. Due to this debris the tenants were unable to use or mow this section of grass, which spanned nearly the entire yard, due to the density of the rocks and the unstable ground. This resulted in a significant loss of usable outdoor space for the tenants and their dog.
Additionally, the tenants say they lost the use of their washing line from 31 May 2024 to 25 November 2025 (77 weeks and 2 days) due to the debris and ongoing works, which they found particularly inconvenient when needing to hang larger items, such as sheets or blankets in the summer months.
The landlord reiterated that the delays in carrying out the remediation work were insurance, consent and then contractor related, not intentional, outside of its control and the tenants were compensated for any loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience through the $25.00 per week rent abatement from 18 November 2024 to 23 November 2025 (52 weeks and 6 days), being a total rent reduction of $1,321.43.
I am satisfied the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the tenants suffered a loss of amenity of easy and safe access to their washing line and storage shed and entry/exit to the house via the laundry door from 31 May 2024 to 20 July 2025 (59 weeks and 2 days), until the retaining wall was remediated, and the loss of amenity of the back yard, pathway and some of the driveway from 21 July 2025 to 23 November 2025 (17 weeks and 6 days), when the contractors failed to clean up these areas after the remediation of the retaining wall. Additionally, the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience for the period 31 May 2024 to 23 November 2025 (77 weeks and 2 days) waiting for the remediation works to commence, the remediation work to be undertaken and waiting for the clean-up works to be undertaken.
I find the tenants did not have to explain the extent of the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they suffered to the landlord, after they notified the landlord of the severe weather incident with the retaining wall. The landlord was conducting regular inspections, and the owners were aware of the stress and inconvenience the tenants were suffering because of the amount of time it took to fully address all aspects of the remediation and clean-up work resulting from the retaining wall issue. I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $4,868.29, made up of the following: a. $89.50 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for the period 31 May 2024 to 17 November 2024 (24 weeks and 2 days) for living without safe access to the washing line, storage shed, and use of the rear entry/exit door and waiting for the insurance process to be completed so the remediation work could be completed. This is a total rent rebate of $2,173.57; and b. $64.50 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for the period 18 November 2024 to 20 July 2025 (34 weeks and 6 days) for living without safe access to the washing line, storage shed, and use of the rear entry/exit door and waiting for the insurance process to be completed so the remediation work could be completed. This is a total rent rebate of $2,248.29. This amount takes into consideration the $25.00 rent abatement already provided to the tenants during this period; c. $25.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for the period 21 July 2025 to 23 November 2025 (17 weeks and 6 days), when the contractors failed to clean up the yard, pathway and parts of the driveway after the remediation of the retaining wall. This is a total rent rebate of $446.43. This amount takes into consideration the $25.00 rent abatement already provided to the tenants during this period. Roof leak
On 19 April 2025, there was sudden downpour causing the eaves/soffits on the east side of the house to collapse. The tenants produced photographs that show the eaves were wide. One tenant claims he stood under these eaves when it was wet and hot to get some relief from the humidity inside. The tenants claim that water ran through the spouting and hit the concrete by the lounge, as the spouting was damaged when the eaves collapsed. Further, that this spouting was not remedied until October 2025, after the tenants issued a14-day notice on 28 September 2025.
The tenants also claim there was an issue with the internal spouting, that overflowed and caused water damage to the internal walls at various times during the tenancy. The tenants say that on the night the eaves collapsed, they woke up as they could hear water coming in from the garage, lounge, kitchen, and guest room as water came through the internal guttering and leaked through the window frames. They say that the blocked spouting built up and then the water came through the entire east side if the house followed by a big crash as the eaves collapsed. Then the leaks stopped. The tenants say there must have been a block in the internal spouting that was unblocked when the eaves collapsed.
The parries confirmed the eaves issue was raised with the landlord straight away the next morning, by text message, with a photograph. The tenants say they could see the structure of the roof from outside and the tenants were concerned about more water getting into the roof cavity from the collapsed eaves.
The landlord says they were not made aware of any internal spouting issues or leaks and considered the collapsed eave to be a cosmetic issue that was no more than a bit of an eye sore that did not cause any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience to the tenants and did not pose and structural or further water damage risks by not being addressed immediately.
On 28 September 2025 the tenants issued a 14-day notice about this issue, and it was not addressed until sometime in October 2025.
The tenants claim that having no spouting from 19 April 2025 to June 2025 meant the tenants had to clean the patio area more frequently, as the dirt and debris fell on to the concrete from the roof and the missing eaves meant they could not stand outside without getting wet during the humid periods. Additionally, the tenants say the eaves and open roof was embarrassing when they hosted visitors.
The landlord reiterated it was aware of the eaves issue in April 2025, and then again in September 2025 in the 14-day notice, but considered it aesthetic (based on advice from the builder) and was not aware of leaks until today’s hearing. This was because the roof and gutters were in good condition, especially after the recent downpipe and gutter work. It confirmed the guttering was fixed in June 2025 and the eaves fixed October 2025, after 14-day notice.
I find that the tenants did not suffer any significant loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience because of the spouting and eaves issues. I accept some minor stress, and inconvenience was caused when they had to clean the patio area more frequently from 19 April 2025 to June 2025 and award general damages of $100.00. here was no evidence to support that there was water damage to the internal walls. Water damage to wall in master bedroom
The tenants produced photographic evidence that proves there was a leak behind the master bedroom ensuite in March 2025, and a plumber opened the wall to address the leak and left it open to allow the wall dry fully before being closed up. Since then, we have been left with an open, exposed wall in our bedroom. This is visually unacceptable.
The property manager confirmed that when she went to undertake the March 2025 property inspection, the wall in this area looked like it was about to cave in. Noticed during and inspection. Once the tradesman investigated, a shower leak was found. The parties confirmed this shower leak was fixed within a week.
The wall, however, was left open and exposed until October 2025, after the tenants issued their 14-day notice on 28 September 2025. This hole in the wall was unsightly and was left open for around seven months. Other than being unsightly, there was no draughts coming though the home or any other loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience suffered by the tenants. They claim they were embarrassed by the hole and wanted it repaired in a timelier manner.
The property manager confirmed she wasn’t aware it was bothering the tenants until she received the 14-day notice and addressed the issue promptly thereafter. Additionally, had they raised it earlier, she would have had it addressed just as promptly.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not take steps to remedy the leaky shower in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances or that the hole in the wall being left longer to dry out than was necessary caused any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience to the tenants . I therefore dismiss this claim. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ privacy and/or quiet enjoyment?
The tenants claims the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. Tradespeople blocking the driveway; b. Tradespeople blocking laundry and bathroom drains making showers and a toile unusable for periods of up to 2 to 3 days; c. Tradespeople making holes in the concrete outside and leaving them uncovered causing health and safety issues; and d. Tradespeople making times to come to site and undertake remedial work or clean up work and not turning up and/or turning up to undertake work with little to no notice.
Landlords are responsible for the actions of the contractors they engage. If contractors are acting unreasonably (e.g. blocking access for more than a few days, damaging/blocking drains), the landlord must address this as part of landlord oversight obligations. Landlords must ensure tenants have reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, which includes access to their home and if the blocked drains are creating an emergency (e.g. sewage overflow, flooding inability to use bathroom and toilet facilities), this is considered an "urgent repair". Minor, short-term disruptions (e.g., 1–2 days) for necessary work are usually considered reasonable.
The parties agreed that the building contractor’s poor communication about access caused the tenants stress and inconvenience and a loss of their quiet enjoyment. Additionally, the parties agreed that the tenants suffered a loss of quiet enjoyment when the mud and debris blocked drains and made two showers and one toilet unusable for 2 to 3 days and that the uncovered holes in the ground caused safety issues.
The tenants confirmed they planned around the informed attendances of the contractors and were constantly let down when they didn’t turn up or they turned up with little or no notice. The landlord confirmed the contractor had personal issues that caused many of these issues and delays. Further, that they had been unreliable, and the tenants had been “mucked around when the contractors were not doing final bits and pieces that were more than minor”. The landlord says this was particularly bad from July 2025 onwards, after the retaining work was completed.
The tenants say the contractor told them the retaining wall work and clean up should be completed in two weeks. It took considerably longer and then the contractor left mess and mud and debris behind for a further 4 months.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in general damages for the breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment from July to November 2025 (4 months) because: a. The landlord allowed it contractors to engage in a pattern of behaviour it knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the contractors inappropriate/unprofessional acts and omissions and breaches of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying rent to enjoy; b. The tenants and their partners suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to have as a safe haven because of the landlord’s contractors breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premise ; and c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive general damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they was paying to enjoy. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicants] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants and landlord apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I also use my discretion to grant the landlord name suppression, as the potential detriment to the landlord of having its name published outweighs any public interest in this matter.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413470 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413470 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions